Delhi District Court
Sh. Dariyao Singh vs Sh. Shiv Kumar Sah on 29 August, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K. MALHOTRA, ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE CUM PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(MACT No. 73/10/09)
Sh. Dariyao Singh
S/o Sh. Pooran Mal
R/o House No. 547,
Village Katewara,
Bawana, Delhi-110039 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Shiv Kumar Sah
S/o Sh. Ram Nasrayan Sah
R/o Rambir Bhatta,
Susana Road,
Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
2. Sh. Rambir Singh
S/o Sh. Bal Raj
R/o Village & P.O. Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonipat,
Haryana.
3. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Signature Tower, 9th floor, Tower-II,
South City, NH-8, Gurgaon,
Haryana
vide policy/cover note No. CCN-1163884 valid upto 21.06.2009 to
20.06.2010
.....Respondents
Date of institution---06.11.2009
Date of decision------29.08.2012
-2-
(Application u/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act
for grant of compensation)
********************************
JUDGMENT:-
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2009 at about 12.36 the petitioner was going on his scooter bearing No. DL-9S-E-8516 from Katewara to Qutab Garh and when petitioner reached in the place of Katewara Mor, Quatab Garh Road, a truck bearing registration No. HR-46-A- 2717 came from behind and hit the petitioner with force and due to this forceful impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and received grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to Maharishi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 2366/09. Further stated that the petitioner was transferred to LNJP hospital where the petitioner remained admitted as indoor patient from 19.08.2009 to 24.08.2009 and is still under treatment. A criminal case under section 279/337 IPC was registered against respondent no.1 vide FIR No. 147/09 in police station Kanjhawala. The injuries as per the MLC were grievous injuries and subsequently the injuries were found to have resulted in 75% physical disability as per the report of the assessment board of Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital.
2. Petitioner alleged that he is retired from DESU and at the time of accident he was working as farmer/agriculturist and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. He claimed sum of Rs. 10 lakhs alongwith interest as compensation from the respondent No. 1 and 2 being driver and owner of the vehicle.
3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement submitting therein that true facts of the case are that the accident was not caused by -3- respondent No. 1 and in order to get the compensation respondent No. 1 and 2 has been falsely implicated in connivance with the police officials and that petitioner did not suffer any injury whatsoever on the part of the respondent. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the alleged car No. MH-12-W-3470 at the time of alleged accident without prejudice. It is submitted that driver of the vehicle was having valid driving licence. Whereas R-3 in its written statement admitted existence of insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle but tried to avoid its liability on various technical grounds.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 14.112011 by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether Sh. Dariyav Singh S/o Sh. Pooran Mal suffered injuries due to road accident on 17.08.2009 at about 12.36 hours within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-46A-2717 being driven by driver Shiv Kumar which hit the scooter of the petitioner? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP
3. Relief.
5. In order to prove its case petitioner has examined himself and corroborated his formal story and relied upon documents, i.e. election card is Ex. PW-1/1, copy of the ration card is Ex. PW-1/2, discharge slip of the respondent alongwith medical documents issued from LNJP Hospital as Ex. PW-1/3(colly.) and the medical bills Ex. PW-1/4 collectively.
Respondent No. 3 in support of its case has examined R3W1 Sh. Puneet Gupta, Regional Head, Legal and TP Claims, Royal Sundram -4- Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. who proved on record attested office copy of insurance policy Ex. R3W1/1 and photo copy of permit is Mark A. None has appeared on behalf of respondent after an application has been filed by the insurance company for attachment of the offending vehicle to stand as a surety for the recovery rights if granted in favour of the insurance company.
6. I have heard counsel for parties and gone through the record. My decision on the above mentioned issues is as under:
Issue no.1:-
7. The proof required in MACT claim petition are less than the proof required to criminal offence or a civil case. The principles to be followed in the case of motor accident claims has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in case cited as Renu Bala Paul and Ors. vs. bani Chakraborty and Ors. 1999 ACJ 634 wherein it is held that:
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society.
In N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. AIR 1980 SCC 1354, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--5-
"Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour".
8. The onus to prove the case is on the petitioner who in support of its case has examined himself and has corroborated the story as to whether the accident was caused by the vehicle in question and by the person who was driving the vehicle i.e. truck at the time of accident. His testimony is unimpeachable and trustworthy since nothing has come in the cross-examination of this witness and put question marks over the trustworthiness or otherwise of the witness regarding his testimony. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have taken the plea that the vehicle has been got seized and they have apprehended in connivance with the police officials of Kanjhawala police station and he was not involved with any accident with their car thereby facing prosecution and it is not their case that they were having any enmity with the injured or his family members or with the IO. Till date no complaint has been registered against the police officials either to IO or SHO for false implication. Case of the prosecution is that driver and owner of the vehicle were involved in case for offence u/s 279/337 IPC and it shows that the vehicle was involved in the accident. Respondent No. 2 got the vehicle released on superdari after it was seized by the police -6- thereby clearly suggesting that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by Respondent No. 2 at the time of accident. Their plea that the accident was not caused by the vehicle could not be substantiated or corroborated by any evidence ( in fact no evidence was led on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2 in support of their contention) and could not have been said to be proved. Hence, this issue stands proved in favour of the petitioner that petitioner/injured received grievous injuries after being hit by the offending vehicle which was driven in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no.2:-
9. Petitioner was taken to the hospital after sustaining injuries on 17.08.2009 and injuries suffered were grievous in nature and he suffered 75% permanent disability.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has observed as under:
"The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term "compensation" used in section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons.-7-
Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of the compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited MANU/SC/0146/1995: (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) - All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial, (iii) other material loss. So for non-pecuniary -8- damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;
(iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life".
In the same case, the court further observed:
"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009) 6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
"At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-...-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so -9- on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity".
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009:
(2009) 13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below:
The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms.
In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Limited Manu/SC/0777/2010: (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the Appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as ho was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered".
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:-10-
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as for as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and hie inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident".
The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) I)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourising food and miscellaneous expenditure.-11-
II)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising;
a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
Non Pecuniary damages (General damages):
iv) Damages for pain suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (I), Iii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads:
i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg.
ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
iii)Future medical expenses.
iv)Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg.
v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage.
vi)Loss of expectation of life.-12-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 2011 decided on 01.11.2011 has further observed as under:
"In this view of the matter, in our view, it would be difficult to hold that for future medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim, fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment, the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the evidence brought on record."
"After the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical replacement of such limb has substantially increased. Therefore, it will be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for future treatment. If this amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest accruing on it will take care of the cost of artificial limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg was meager. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose limb is amputated as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets artificial limb, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a young man of 24 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice -13- will be met b awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg."
"The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life."
Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
Loss of income
11. Petitioner in his petition alleged that at the time of accident he was a farmer and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month but no proof has been filed by petitioner in support of his plea. It is not the case of the petitioner that in his absence any other person had not looked after his work. Accordingly the amount of Rs. 4401/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act Schedule has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculations of the dependency assuming him under the category of matriculate. Petitioner is granted the loss of income of 6 months only. Thus he is entitled to sum of Rs.26,406/- (Rs. 4400/-X6).
Medical Expenses Further petitioner stated that he was admitted in the LNJP hospital from 19.08.09 to 24.08.2009 and thereafter since 29.10.2009 upto 03.11.2009 he was admitted at Braham Shakti Hospital & Research Center, Budh Vihar, Delhi. Petitioner has placed on record the bills pertaining to -14- medical treatment to the extent of Rs.3500/- only which is Ex. PW-1/4. So, petitioner is entitled to Rs.3500/- towards the medical expenses.
13. As per the case of injured, he has suffered disability to the extent of 75%. He is not working because being not capable of working and in that very nature of the things the functional disability is 100%. In this regard reliance is taken upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Raviraj Udupa Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 286 decided on 16.08.2011.
14. The petitioner/injured was a farmer. He was aged about 64 years at the time of accident. Petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of agriculture income. This tribunal has no option but to rely upon the schedule of minimum wages as at the date of accident he was semi skilled worker. Hence petitioner is being matriculate which comes to Rs. 4401/-. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajha Vs. National Insurance Co. 2010 ACJ 627 and New India Assurance Co. Vs. Raja Ram MAC. APP. No. 175/06 decided on 25.8.2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of minimum wages of semi skilled worker from time to time and rises in price index and inflation, it can be said that minimum wages of unskilled worker would get almost double over a period of next ten years and thus future prospects should be given upon minimum wages also. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled Shiddhi Gopal Dixit Vs Siya Ram & Others reported in 2012 ACJ 165. Thus applying the formula given in these judgments, the monthly income of the petitioner can be held at Rs. 5721.3 (4401 + 30%).
-15-15. Petitioner in the petition described his age as 64 years which is corroborated with the document i.e. disability certificate Ex.PX wherein age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 64 years. Hence in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298, multiplier of 14 has to be applied to count loss of earning capacity.
As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla Vs. Gopal MAC. APP No. 1028/2006 decided on 22.3.2010 so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. 3,60,441.9 as per the formula (5721.3 X 12 X 7 X 75%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs. 3,60,442/- (in round figure) Conveyance charges Though petitioner has not placed on record any document in support of the claim of the petitioner for grant of conveyance but he has remained in hospital for quite substantial time and judicial mind must have been taken to the effect that being 72% physical disabled person he has spent a lot of money at his trips to hospital and back. The treatment continued so long obviously and even still the treatment is continued. I grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance charges to the petitioner on account of amount spent by the petitioner for visit to and from the hospital.
Special diet
15. No proof of spending upon special diet is brought on record but it is a fact that normally in case of sickness and serious injury, a special diet in the form of healthy food, juices, milk etc is provided instead of or in addition to the normal food. Accordingly I am of the view that maximum petitioner can be paid lump sum Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet.
-16-Pain, suffering, inconvenience and frustration
16. As per the case of Govind Yadav it is not possible for the tribunals and the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person suffered permanent disability as a result of accident. Even if the victim of accident gets out of grievous injuries, he will suffer from different kinds of handicaps and social stigma throughout his life. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the Courts should make a broad guess for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the Appellant was a man of 64 years. For the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work. Therefore, ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering, inconvenience and frustration etc. caused due to injuries suffered in accident.
Loss of amenities and disfigurement
18. It can only be a matter of imagination that as to how he performed day to day activities as efficiently as he was. The Appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the loss of amenities and disfigurement as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court given in case Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, III (2007) ACC 676 and Govind Yadav vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited.
19. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has not bring on record any evidence to point out that it is not liable to pay compensation amount. Further it is not the case of the insurance company that any term -17- or condition of the insurance policy was breached by the insured or it has any limited liability. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company alone becomes entitled to pay entire compensation amount.
20. In view of the above discussions, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner by holding that he is entitled to get the following total compensation from the respondent/insurance company only:
A) Pecuniary damages (Special damages):
a) Medical bills---------------------------------------------------Rs. 3,500/-
b) Special diet----------------------------------------------------Rs. 25,000/-
c) Conveyance charges---------------------------------------Rs. 25,000/-
d) Loss of income -----------------------------------------------Rs. 26,406/-
f) Loss of future income-==----------------------------------Rs.3,60,442/-
B) Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
a) Pain, sufferings, inconvenience and frustration-----Rs. 1,50,000/-
b) Loss of amenities and disfigurement---- --------------Rs. 2,00,000/-
__________________ Total Rs. 7,90,348/-
Issue no.3 (Relief):-
21. On the basis of findings given above, present petition is disposed off and respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to pay sum of Rs. 7,90,348/- to the petitioner within 30 days alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 06.11.2009 till this amount is fully paid.
22. Further it is directed that 10% of the entire amount be released to the petitioner in cash and out of the remaining 90% of awarded amount, -18- Rs. 1,00,000/- for one year, Rs.2,00,000/- for two years and remaining amount for five years be deposited with HDFC Pitam Pura Branch in the form of FDR with liberty to petitioner to withdraw respective share of interest form these FDRs not to be encashed without the permission of the court.
Respondent no. 3 is directed to prepare the separate cheques of the compensation amount as per above order. .
With these observations, award is passed, put up for compliance on 29.09.2012. Payment be made within 30 days from the order failing which petitioner will be entitled to penalty interest as per the RBI guidelines.
Announced in the open (D.K. MALHOTRA)
Court on 29.08.2012 JUDGE, MACT (OUTER-II)
DELHI